Ozan Jaquette
UCLAKarina Salazar
University of Arizonaozanj.github.io/student_list_hsls/slides/student_list.html
A two-sided matching problem in which market allocates students to colleges (Hoxby, 1997; Hoxby, 2009)
Matchmaking
“Student list” products are a matchmaking intermediary that connects colleges to prospects
Policy concerns about student list products
Research questions
Research questions
Enrollment funnel: prospects >> leads >> inquires >> applicants >> admits >> enrolled
Prospects
Leads
Inquiries
Sources of student list data
Buying lists: “search filters” control which prospects included in purchase
Selection devices allocate individuals to categories based on input factors (Hirschman and Bosk, 2020)
Structural racism (Tiako, South, and Ray, 2021, p. 1143)
Standardized college entrance exams and AP exams as racialized inputs
P1: The condition of taking standardized assessments is associated with racial disparities in who is included versus excluded in student list products.
P2: As test score threshold increases, the proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to the proportion who are excluded.
P3. As purchases filter on more affluent geographic localities (e.g., zip codes), the proportion of underrepresented minority students included in student lists declines relative to the proportion who are excluded.
Filtering on multiple racialized inputs has compounding effect on racial inequality
High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS09)
Student List Project
| State | # received order summary | # no order summary | # received list | # no list | # received both | # did not receive both |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA | 9 | 23 | 13 | 19 | 9 | 23 |
| IL | 9 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 8 | 4 |
| TX | 15 | 20 | 16 | 19 | 10 | 25 |
RQ1: What is the relationship between student list search filters and the racial composition of students who are included versus excluded from College Board student list purchases?
RQ2:
| Research | MA/doctoral | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filters | Count | Percent | Filters | Count | Percent |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Rank, State, Race | 39 | 10% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, Zip code | 206 | 45% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, State | 27 | 7% | HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, Zip code | 145 | 32% |
| HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State, Race | 20 | 5% | HS grad class, SAT, State | 31 | 7% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, State, Low SES | 20 | 5% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, Zip code | 28 | 6% |
| HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State | 17 | 5% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State | 7 | 2% |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, State | 16 | 4% | HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket | 6 | 1% |
| HS grad class, GPA, AP score, Geomarket | 15 | 4% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, County | 5 | 1% |
| HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, State, Segment, Gender | 13 | 3% | HS grad class, GPA, SAT, PSAT, County | 4 | 1% |
| HS grad class, PSAT, Geomarket | 12 | 3% | HS grad class, GPA, PSAT, State | 2 | 0% |
| HS grad class, SAT, State, Low SES, College size | 11 | 3% | HS grad class, SAT, Geomarket, College type | 2 | 0% |
| Academic | Geographic | Demographic | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All domestic | GPA | PSAT | SAT | HS rank | AP score | Zip code | State | Geomarket | Segment | CBSA | Race | Gender | ||||
| Total | 3,547,620 | 1,101,266 | 1,812,447 | 971,237 | 146,660 | 75,479 | 165,924 | 1,173,678 | 1,056,951 | 186,519 | 146,313 | 279,626 | 39,546 | |||
| Location | ||||||||||||||||
| % In-state | 38 | 62 | 30 | 54 | 83 | 42 | 98 | 48 | 17 | 15 | 4 | 59 | 6 | |||
| % Out-of-state | 62 | 38 | 70 | 46 | 17 | 58 | 2 | 52 | 83 | 85 | 96 | 41 | 94 | |||
| Race/ethnicity | ||||||||||||||||
| % White | 48 | 45 | 50 | 47 | 51 | 17 | 43 | 42 | 57 | 51 | 53 | 25 | 47 | |||
| % Asian | 16 | 15 | 17 | 15 | 10 | 7 | 13 | 18 | 13 | 27 | 28 | 5 | 38 | |||
| % Black | 5 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 17 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 1 | |||
| % Latinx | 21 | 24 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 46 | 27 | 24 | 16 | 11 | 8 | 46 | 6 | |||
| % AI/AN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
| % NH/PI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Multiracial | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 5 | |||
| % Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % No response | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | |||
| % Missing | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Gender | ||||||||||||||||
| % Male | 34 | 19 | 37 | 18 | 0 | 3 | 46 | 24 | 48 | 6 | 0 | 11 | 0 | |||
| % Female | 36 | 23 | 40 | 20 | 1 | 15 | 54 | 27 | 52 | 9 | 0 | 12 | 33 | |||
| % Other | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Missing | 30 | 58 | 22 | 63 | 99 | 82 | 0 | 49 | 0 | 85 | 1 | 77 | 67 | |||
| Household income | ||||||||||||||||
| Median income | $107K | $105K | $108K | $105K | $99K | $90K | $97K | $105K | $107K | $130K | $135K | $94K | $127K | |||
| Locale | ||||||||||||||||
| % City | 27 | 27 | 27 | 26 | 26 | 31 | 31 | 30 | 23 | 24 | 22 | 29 | 26 | |||
| % Suburban | 44 | 47 | 44 | 48 | 53 | 40 | 42 | 42 | 46 | 54 | 57 | 47 | 49 | |||
| % Rural - Fringe | 22 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 15 | 23 | 19 | 22 | 23 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 23 | |||
| % Rural - Distant | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | |||
| % Rural - Remote | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| % Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 2011 D+ Cluster | SAT Math | SAT CR | Going Out of State | Percent NonWhite | Need Financial Aid | Med Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 546.00 | 533.00 | 32% | 30% | 57% | $95,432 |
| 52 | 480.00 | 470.00 | 30% | 58% | 71% | $63,578 |
| 53 | 561.00 | 544.00 | 32% | 50% | 55% | $92,581 |
| 54 | 458.00 | 443.00 | 25% | 83% | 76% | $38,977 |
| 55 | 566.00 | 565.00 | 52% | 24% | 63% | $71,576 |
| 56 | 420.00 | 411.00 | 29% | 93% | 66% | $35,308 |
| 57 | 541.00 | 519.00 | 52% | 47% | 43% | $67,394 |
| 58 | 533.00 | 489.00 | 28% | 87% | 69% | $68,213 |
| 59 | 561.00 | 562.00 | 52% | 24% | 74% | $54,750 |
| 60 | 589.00 | 590.00 | 63% | 37% | 36% | $104,174 |
| 61 | 585.00 | 567.00 | 51% | 30% | 40% | $123,858 |
| 62 | 596.00 | 595.00 | 67% | 24% | 72% | $59,824 |
| 63 | 548.00 | 541.00 | 39% | 23% | 65% | $69,347 |
| 64 | 466.00 | 466.00 | 48% | 34% | 29% | $49,829 |
| 65 | 440.00 | 433.00 | 23% | 93% | 78% | $45,081 |
| 66 | 499.00 | 492.00 | 20% | 12% | 76% | $50,453 |
| 67 | 519.00 | 501.00 | 27% | 53% | 59% | $60,960 |
| 68 | 552.00 | 558.00 | 52% | 35% | 65% | $57,902 |
| 69 | 534.00 | 521.00 | 37% | 19% | 65% | $88,100 |
| 70 | 613.00 | 598.00 | 65% | 29% | 61% | $86,381 |
| 71 | 405.00 | 408.00 | 39% | 97% | 68% | $42,661 |
| 72 | 399.00 | 397.00 | 31% | 87% | 47% | $32,708 |
| 73 | 528.00 | 514.00 | 29% | 42% | 62% | $90,849 |
| 74 | 433.00 | 435.00 | 29% | 84% | 79% | $44,065 |
| 75 | 459.00 | 457.00 | 28% | 85% | 72% | $50,421 |
| 76 | 514.00 | 509.00 | 27% | 38% | 64% | $61,332 |
| 77 | 502.00 | 492.00 | 26% | 18% | 75% | $62,372 |
| 78 | 594.00 | 578.00 | 56% | 26% | 39% | $134,400 |
| 79 | 550.00 | 551.00 | 57% | 32% | 74% | $40,909 |
| 80 | 534.00 | 527.00 | 39% | 39% | 65% | $49,877 |
| 81 | 491.00 | 483.00 | 27% | 57% | 72% | $63,030 |
| 82 | 496.00 | 491.00 | 29% | 21% | 75% | $53,465 |
| 83 | 500.00 | 490.00 | 19% | 26% | 71% | $49,335 |
| Total | 512.00 | 502.00 | 32% | 43% | 65% | $70,231 |
| 2011 D+ Cluster | SAT Math | SAT CR | Going Out of State | Percent NonWhite | Need Financial Aid | Med Income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 51 | 462.00 | 457.00 | 14% | 33% | 68% | $40,918 |
| 52 | 489.00 | 496.00 | 81% | 99% | 77% | $64,730 |
| 53 | 471.00 | 484.00 | 28% | 38% | 62% | $60,833 |
| 54 | 376.00 | 371.00 | 33% | 96% | 38% | $38,146 |
| 55 | 489.00 | 481.00 | 39% | 46% | 44% | $71,845 |
| 56 | 536.00 | 508.00 | 73% | 43% | 49% | $63,967 |
| 57 | 434.00 | 435.00 | 29% | 82% | 79% | $48,301 |
| 58 | 592.00 | 577.00 | 51% | 27% | 32% | $104,509 |
| 59 | 499.00 | 489.00 | 19% | 18% | 74% | $47,685 |
| 60 | 523.00 | 549.00 | 23% | 30% | 33% | $70,175 |
| 61 | 485.00 | 370.00 | 33% | 89% | 9% | $61,385 |
| 62 | 474.00 | 473.00 | 34% | 92% | 67% | $55,515 |
| 63 | 440.00 | 427.00 | 28% | 86% | 72% | $49,238 |
| 64 | 606.00 | 542.00 | 37% | 89% | 57% | $81,911 |
| 65 | 515.00 | 503.00 | 28% | 43% | 65% | $72,692 |
| 66 | 498.00 | 515.00 | 37% | 37% | 73% | $60,272 |
| 67 | 526.00 | 546.00 | 48% | 41% | 69% | $71,279 |
| 68 | 541.00 | 540.00 | 41% | 26% | 62% | $79,260 |
| 69 | 390.00 | 395.00 | 36% | 92% | 74% | $43,391 |
| 70 | 595.00 | 581.00 | 56% | 33% | 48% | $105,721 |
| 71 | 400.00 | 412.00 | 57% | 98% | 80% | $43,137 |
| 72 | 528.00 | 544.00 | 35% | 25% | 64% | $70,018 |
| 73 | 451.00 | 438.00 | 24% | 89% | 76% | $48,406 |
| 74 | 654.00 | 579.00 | 76% | 80% | 46% | $59,089 |
| 75 | 514.00 | 502.00 | 31% | 20% | 71% | $72,850 |
| 76 | 600.00 | 584.00 | 72% | 50% | 28% | $90,265 |
| 77 | 595.00 | 508.00 | 64% | 75% | 39% | $39,490 |
| 78 | 473.00 | 468.00 | 48% | 43% | 22% | $56,703 |
| 79 | 594.00 | 585.00 | 61% | 26% | 71% | $65,180 |
| Total | 514.00 | 502.00 | 32% | 44% | 65% | $70,223 |
Student list data derived from user-data of students laboring on platforms
[1] R. Benjamin. Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Medford, MA: Polity, 2019. ISBN: 9781509526390 (hardback) 9781509526406 (paperback).
[2] E. Bonilla-Silva. “Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation”. In: American Sociological Review 62.3 (1997), pp. 465-480. ISSN: 0003-1224. DOI: 10.2307/2657316. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:A1997XG45300007.
[3] College Board. Segment Analysis Service: An educationally relevant geodemographic tagging service. Tech. rep. College Board, 2011. URL: https://secure-media.collegeboard.org/mSSS/media/pdf/segment-analysis-service-overview.pdf.
[4] T. M. Cottom. Lower ed: The troubling rise of for-profit colleges in the new economy. New Press, The, 2017.
[5] T. M. Cottom. “Where platform capitalism and racial capitalism meet: The sociology of race and racism in the digital society”. In: Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6.4 (2020), pp. 441-449. ISSN: 2332-6492. DOI: 10.1177/2332649220949473. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220949473.
[6] D. Hirschman and E. A. Bosk. “Standardizing biases: Selection devices and the quantification of race”. In: Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 6.3 (2020), pp. 348-364. DOI: 10.1177/2332649219844797. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2332649219844797.
[7] M. M. Holland. Divergent paths to college: Race, class, and inequality in high schools. Rutgers University Press, 2019. DOI: 10.36019/9780813590288.
[8] J. Howell, M. H. Hurwitz, Z. Mabel, et al. Participation in student search service is associated with higher college enrollment and completion. Tech. rep. College Board, 2021. URL: https://cbsearch.collegeboard.org/pdf/college-outreach-and-student-outcomes.pdf.
[9] C. M. Hoxby. How the changing market structure of U.S. higher education explains college tuition. Tech. rep. Working Paper 6323. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997. URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/W6323.pdf.
[10] C. M. Hoxby. “The changing selectivity of American colleges”. In: Journal of Economic Perspectives 23.4 (2009), pp. 95-118. ISSN: 0895-3309. URL: <Go to ISI>://000272677100005.
[11] S. R. Khan. Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul's School. Princeton studies in cultural sociology. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011, p. 232. ISBN: 9780691145280 (alk. paper) 0691145288 (alk. paper) 9780691156231 (pbk.) 0691156239 (pbk.).
[12] A. Leyshon and N. Thrift. “Lists come alive: electronic systems of knowledge and the rise of credit-scoring in retail banking”. In: Economy and Society 28.3 (1999), pp. 434-466. ISSN: 0308-5147. DOI: 10.1080/03085149900000013. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/03085149900000013.
[13] K. Marx. “Capital”. In: The Marx-Engels Reader. Ed. by R. C. Tucker. second. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1978.
[14] D. Norris. “Embedding racism: City government credit ratings and the institutionalization of race in markets”. In: Social Problems (2021). ISSN: 0037-7791. DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spab066. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spab066.
[15] C. O'Neil. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. First edition.. New York: Crown, 2016, p. x, 259 pages. ISBN: 9780553418811 (hardcover) 9780553418835 (softcover).
[16] F. Pasquale. The black box society: the secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2015, p. 311. ISBN: 9780674368279.
[17] A. Posecznick. Selling hope and college merit, markets, and recruitment in an unranked school. Ithaca ; London: Cornell University Press, 2017. ISBN: 9781501707582 9781501709821. URL: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/52616.
[18] J. Sadowski. “When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction”. In: Big Data & Society 6.1 (2019), p. 12. ISSN: 2053-9517. DOI: 10.1177/2053951718820549. URL: <Go to ISI>://WOS:000455488000001.
[19] K. G. Salazar. “Recruitment Redlining by Public Research Universities in the Los Angeles and Dallas Metropolitan Areas”. In: The Journal of Higher Education (2022), pp. 1–37. DOI: 10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.2004811.
[20] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. “Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You? Off-Campus Recruiting by Public Research Universities”. In: American Educational Research Journal 58.6 (2021), pp. 1270-1314. DOI: 10.3102/00028312211001810. URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/00028312211001810.
[21] K. G. Salazar, O. Jaquette, and C. Han. Geodemographics of student list purchases: a first look. Tech. rep. Washington, DC: TICAS, 2022. URL: https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Geodemographics-of-Student-List-Purchases_A-First-Look.pdf.
[22] M. L. Stevens. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007, p. 308. ISBN: 9780674026735 (alk. paper) 067402673X (alk. paper).
[23] M. J. N. Tiako, E. South, and V. Ray. “Medical Schools as Racialized Organizations: A Primer”. In: Annals of Internal Medicine 174.8 (2021), pp. 1143-1144. DOI: